News for the Pacific Region

February 2, 2018 — Commercial fishing for halibut opens on March 24 and runs through Nov. 7, with no decision reached by the International Pacific Halibut Commission at its annual meeting in Portland, Ore., on conservation cuts for 2018.

NOAA Fisheries is considering the implications of the IPHC meeting and now trying to determine what steps to take, and some are hoping the impasse may yet be resolved by an additional IPHC meeting soon.

Bob Alverson, general manager of the Fishing Vessel Owners Association in Seattle, and one of three U.S. commissioners, is one of those hoping for another meeting soon. “I think we have an excellent corps of scientists and the inability of the commissioners to come to an agreement is unfortunate,” he said. “I think it is worth one more shot for the commissioners to try to figure it out. I knew it was going to be difficult going in to it.”

Back in 2014 harvest reductions put in place included 33 percent in Area 3A, 30 percent in Area 3B, 42 percent in 4A, 20 percent in 4B and 20 percent in 2C, but Canada did not take such aggressive reductions, Alverson said. That done, U.S. percentage reductions are less for this year, while Canada needed almost a 42 percent reduction and it was too much to bite off, he said.

January 29, 2018 — A geologist might not be the first person that comes to mind when you think about salmon experts, but David Montgomery wrote the book on the decline of salmon: “King of Fish” in 2004.

Montgomery, a geomorphologist and professor at the University of Washington, has a unique perspective on why salmon are so important to our region. Of course, there’s the importance to the indigenous people in our area and the delicious food they provide, but they also have a serious impact on our whole ecosystem.

“Juvenile salmon are hatched in their natal home river streams and they’re tiny suckers, so they go out to the ocean and they get big,” Montgomery explains. “They spend most of their life out at sea in a more resource-rich marine environment then they bring their bodies back to the rivers and streams in Washington, and Puget Sound along the way, with these bodies full of nutrients.”

After the salmon return home, spawn and die, those nutrients don’t just go away. “They get recycled,” Montgomery says. Decaying salmon feed tiny organisms in streambeds, which are eaten the next year by juvenile salmon. Salmon also get dragged onto the forest floor by bears and eagles and distribute their nutrients there. “Fully one-third of the nitrogen in those big old-growth trees in our forests swam up river as a fish,” Montgomery says. “When you lose those big runs of salmon, you lose those nutrients and it cascades through the whole system.”

It’s no secret that those big runs are declining in a major way. Historically, adult salmon returns to the Columbia Basin were at least 10 to 16 million fish annually — today, across the Northwest, less than 5 percent of historic populations of wild salmon and steelhead return to our rivers and streams. Fifteen different salmon and steelhead stocks in Washington state are listed under the federal Endangered Species Act today.

As Montgomery notes, the loss of these salmon means a domino effect to the ecosystem. More than 135 other fish and wildlife populations benefit from the presence of wild salmon and steelhead, from southern resident orca whales, which are at a 30-year population low, to eagles, wolves, bear, otter, coyote, seals and sea lions.

January 26, 2018 — When Jamie Peyton first examined the bears’ paws last month, she figured they might take six months to heal.

Peyton, a veterinarian at the University of California at Davis, had treated cats and dogs with burns before, and she knew these were severe. The two female black bears in her care had survived the Thomas wildfire that swept through Southern California in December, but both suffered third-degree burns that had caused their paw pads to slough off. They could hardly stand due to pain.

Instead of six months, the bears’ injuries healed in a matter of weeks — a quick recovery Peyton attributed to a treatment never before tried on human or animal burn victims in the United States: fish skins applied as bandages.

Using fish skin wasn’t Peyton’s first instinct when state wildlife authorities enlisted her help. They had found one bear huddling on Dec. 9 in a backyard aviary near the town of Ojai and the other two weeks later in a nearby wooded area. A third patient, a 5-month-old male mountain lion with burned paws, was discovered in the woods shortly before Christmas. Kirsten Macintyre, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, said officials determined the three were candidates for rehabilitation, which meant transferring them to a state wildlife investigations lab near Sacramento. A vet there suggested calling on Peyton, chief of the Integrative Medicine Service at the UC Davis veterinary teaching hospital.

Peyton said she first tried the usual care: cleaning the burns, removing dead tissue and applying ointments. But she knew two very important steps — covering the burns and providing pain control — would be tricky with these unusual patients, which needed to stay a safe distance from people when not sedated.

There was no guarantee they’d gulp down pain pills hidden in their food, Peyton said. “And we couldn’t put on any type of bandage material they would eat,” because that might cause intestinal obstruction. Also, she said, “if a bandage comes off, you can’t really go into the cage to get it.”

A fast recovery was imperative, especially for the second bear. Peyton’s team had discovered the bear was pregnant during an ultrasound exam, and they feared the stress of giving birth in captivity would cause her to reject the cub.

Then, the veterinarian said, she remembered a news story she had read about scientists in Brazil successfully using sterilized tilapia skin on human burns. Like the pig and human tissues that have long been applied to burns, the fish skin is moist and transfers collagen, a protein that helps healing. But it’s cheaper and widely available, because it’s a byproduct of tilapia sold as food. The Brazilian researchers told Reuters last year that it hastened recovery in their patients and reduced the need for pain medication.

January 25, 2018 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Oregon’s most valuable commercial fishery for the state’s official crustacean, Dungeness crab, got underway north of Cape Blanco this week. While storms and price negotiations kept fishermen docked for awhile after the official opening, processors are expecting large deliveries soon.

A major reason Dungeness crab deliveries are large and that it’s the state’s official crustacean is due to successful management.

Dungeness crab have been harvested commercially along the Pacific Coast since the late 1800s. Current regulations allow only male crabs larger than 6 ¼ inches across the back of the shell to be taken. This protects the female and undersized male crabs that constitute the breeding population and produce the next generation of crab to be harvested in about four years, ensuring the sustainability of the overall stock and the industry.

This regulatory approach is working, according to an Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife press release. Preliminary results from a NOAA study show the population of legal-size males appears to be stable to increasing on the West Coast. Harvest rates are also stable to increasing. Last season’s ex-vessel value set a record of $62.7 million, with landings totaling 20 million pounds, 22 percent above the 10-year average, the statement said.

Washington and California have similar management structures.

State natural resource agencies in Oregon, Washington and California cooperate as part of what’s known as the Tri-State Agreement. They jointly set a season opening date for the area from Point Arena, Calif. to Grays Harbor, Wash., or divide it into two areas with different opening dates. This helps ensure the fishery is fair and certain areas aren’t over-targeted while others are closed.

While domoic acid did not play a role in this year’s delayed opening for the northern area, the fishery south of Cape Blanco remains closed because at least some crab are still above the domoic acid action level. Toxins present an ongoing concern for the state and the industry, and Oregon has a monitoring and response system in place for shellfish to protect public health and manage the risk of contamination. The Oregon Department of Agriculture oversees the collection and testing of shellfish samples. Crabs are sampled every two to four weeks when toxins are above a certain level in razor clams or another indicator species.

Since the first ever in-season commercial closure of a harvest area last year, when a single crab’s viscera tested too high for domoic acid, ODFW, ODA and the industry have adopted new rules to improve traceability in the market chain, resulting in better preparation and response to future domoic acid events.

Efforts to reduce commercial crabbing’s impact on the environment and other marine species are also underway. Since 2014, a derelict gear removal program collecting abandoned crab pots or other equipment has been in place. Commercial crabbers removed 957 old pots from the ocean in 2017 alone. A collaborative working group involving industry, agencies, and conservation organizations is also looking at ways to modify gear and other measures to reduce the risk of whale entanglements.

“We’re looking forward to many more years of a successful commercial crab industry and sustainable resource in Oregon,” ODFW state fishery program leader Troy Buell said in the statement.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Sea lions have fully rebounded with an estimated population of more than 250,000 in 2014, according to a recent study by scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In 1975, the population was estimated at less than 90,000.

The study reconstructed the population’s triumphs and trials over the past 40 years.

“The population has basically come into balance with its environment,” co-author Sharon Melin, a research biologist at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, said in a statement. “The marine environment is always changing, and their population is at a point where it responds very quickly to changes in the environment.”

NOAA’s declaration that California sea lions have fully rebounded does not mean a “delisting” as it would if the sea lion was listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act.

“Although there is no provision in the Marine Mammal Protection Act (which protects sea lions) to delist a species, there is a provision that allows states to ask NOAA Fisheries to take over management of species that have reached carrying capacity (in the law it is called Optimum Sustainable Population or OSP) and potentially do more to control their numbers,” wrote NOAA spokesperson Michael Milstein when announcing the report’s findings.

The goal now, Melin said, is to keep the population balanced between 183,000 and 275,000 individuals.

The rebound is a victory for the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act. But as in other instances of animal populations beating the odds — wolves, for example — it’s a success story that comes with challenges.

As the California sea lion population has grown, the animals have expanded their range, bringing them into conflict with humans and endangered fish.

Where you sit’

In Astoria, male California sea lions have taken over an entire stretch of docks at the Port of Astoria’s East Mooring Basin. Port employees have attempted numerous deterrent tactics over the years, everything from fluttering wind dancers to a fake killer whale. Nothing has really worked.

Upward of 1,000 pinnipeds were recorded in a single daily count at the mooring basin in 2015. While fewer sea lions returned this spring, plenty showed up in the fall and many have stuck around through the winter instead of leaving like they have in the past, said Janice Burk, marina manager.

The port plans to install more low railing fabricated by students from Knappa along the docks in the spring. It has proved to be the one deterrent that seems to work. Sometimes.

“We do an excellent job raising fish there- here in the Puget Sound, said Tom Glaspie who is the farm manager at Cooke’s Hope Island facility. “We give it our all. We care about the environment. Most of us are fishermen; (our) families have fished, and we’re proud to be Washingtonians.”

January 5, 2018 — SEAFOOD NEWS — We have been deluged with press releases and new stories this morning reacting to the executive order by President Trump opening up virtually all US coastal waters to oil drilling.

This is something that has been opposed for more than 50 years by both the fisheries and tourism industries, and is opposed by all coastal states except for Alaska, and those in the Gulf of Mexcio where drilling is already taking place.

We doubt this decision will stand.

First of all, the oil markets are not signaling any strong interest in offshore drilling, although they do want the political payoff from the administration of opening up public lands in protected areas within the continental US.

Oil analysts say that current and projected prices simply don’t support expansion of offshore drilling into new expensive areas. The Shell project to do a test site in the Beaufort Sea off the North Slope of Alaska ended in humiliating failure, as they could not even get the rig into place. After spending $7 billiion, Shell has withdrawn its interest.

Secondly, drilling has is a long term time horizon. It will take about 18 months for rules to be in place; then if there were leases, it would take ten years or so for exploration and development. During this time, the political equation in Washington is very likely to shift back to the consensus that has existed for 40 or 50 years, which is that fisheries and tourism are more important to the US economy than the oil companies.

Third, the US is now on track to produce a record amount of oil, surpassing the previous highest output in 1970. This is all due to improved technology for land based recovery. Why oil companies would turn from their successful fracking model that is bringing old wells to life to a far more risky offshore strategy makes no economic sense.

Finally, with the exception of Alaska, Texas, and Louisiana, virtually all other coastal states are vehemently opposed to offshore drilling. Florida lost billions of dollars in the Deep Water Horizon disaster, and no Florida politician can survive who does not protect that state from offshore drilling.

Likewise, California experienced the Santa Barbara channel spill that turned the entire state against offshore drilling there, and it is highly unlikely that the state would allow the regulatory process to proceed to bring oil ashore.

In Massachusetts, there is a long running international moratorium in drilling on Georges Bank, and again, the local opposition to any oil company attempting to use a lease would be ferocious.

Given the lack of economic return, no oil company is going to take up this fight for any reason other than to gain political points with Trump. That is not a good position on which to base a long term strategy.

The one state where this might make a difference in Alaska, where the state budget is dependent on oil, and has been hit more than anywhere else by the global oil glut and the turn to natural gas and solar. Alaska is desperate to gain more drilling, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski succeeded in getting a provision opening ANWR to oil drilling. But no matter how much the current state government may want more drilling, the economics dictate where such drilling might take place, and it certainly does not appear to be offshore.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

January 4, 2018 — Many rural Oregon towns share the same problems; the natural resources they traditionally based their economies on no longer support them, and isolation and limited funds often make solutions hard to come by. But how these communities grapple with these changes can vary.

JPR’s Liam Moriarty takes us to Port Orford, on the state’s south coast, to see how people in one fishing town are working to carve out a potential future.

About two miles south of Port Orford — and less than a mile off the beach — is a cluster of rocks and reefs. Sitting in the cabin of his fishing boat on the dock at the Port of Port Orford, Orion Ashdown says the area known as Redfish Rocks has been a favorite fishing ground.

For years, the abundance of species there drew Ashdown and other Port Orford commercial fishermen. But that ended in 2012, when the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife closed what had by then become the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve. Now, the only fishing done there is for scientific research …

Leesa Cobb, with the non-profit Port Orford Ocean Resource Team, says the idea of closing a productive local fishing ground was at best, counterintuitive.

January 4, 2018 — The Trump administration is proposing to greatly expand the areas available for offshore oil and natural gas drilling, including off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts.

In the first major step toward the administration’s promised expansion of offshore drilling, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said nearly all of the nation’s outer continental shelf is being considered for drilling, including areas off the coasts of Maine, California, Florida and Alaska.

The proposal, which environmentalists immediately panned as an environmental disaster and giveaway to the fossil fuel industry, is far larger than what was envisioned in President Trump’s executive order last year seeking a new plan for the future of auctions of offshore drilling rights. That order asked Zinke to consider drilling expansions in the Atlantic and Arctic oceans.

“This is a start on looking at American energy dominance and looking at our offshore assets and beginning a dialogue of when, how, where and how fast those offshore assets should be, or could be, developed,” Zinke told reporters Thursday.

January 3, 2018 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The following is a letter form Lori Steele, the Executive Director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association, responding to the Seafood News story, “MSA Reauthorization Veers From Core Principles After House Committee Vote; Would Allow Overfishing,” originally published on December 19, 2017:

The assertion that, “changing words like ‘to the extent possible’ to ‘to the extent [practicable]’ when rebuilding stocks” will make the MSA weaker and less precise is incorrect and disingenuous. The West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA), along with the majority of the U.S. seafood industry, has supported this change through several MSA reauthorization bills over the last few years. The inclusion of this in H.R. 200 should be viewed as a success. This change will not compromise or weaken the effectiveness of the MSA; rather, it will help to truly fulfill one of the fundamental and original goals of the MSA, emphasized in National Standard 1, the Act’s guiding principle – to prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis the optimum yield from each fishery. From its beginning, the MSA has conserved, protected, rebuilt, and sustained our nation’s marine resources. As we move forward with this reauthorization, we have an opportunity to better conserve, protect, and sustain the people, the economies, the culture, and the communities that rely upon healthy and abundant fisheries.

Case in Point: The Pacific Fishery Management Council faced a situation like this in 2013 with rebuilding plans for two rockfish stocks. At that time, allowing 30-mt increase in the ACL of a single rockfish species while achieving rebuilt status in December of that year – vs. January of that same year – would have provided for another few hundred tons of associated rockfish landings. While the dockside landed value of those fish may not have been viewed as significant, the indirect value was enormous: Having more incidental species available would have provided additional opportunity for commercial, sport, and tribal harvesters to access abundant stocks of fish that currently go unharvested due to the choke species effect. In turn, local vessels would have had another few weeks on the water, processors would have had longer seasons, consumers would have had more healthy domestic seafood – all without any risk to the status of the rebuilding rockfish species. Yet, the interpretation of the law required selection of a rebuilding time that would be as short as possible, not as short as practicable.

Simply changing the terminology from “possible” to “practicable” in the rebuilding requirements of the MSA would provide Councils much needed flexibility and the option to choose between several rebuilding scenarios to achieve specified conservation and management objectives, not just the shortest and most harmful to fishing communities. This change could benefit coastal communities without undermining any conservation and stock rebuilding objectives. The Councils would be able to exercise some reasonable judgment so they could, for example, allow a fish stock to be rebuilt in December rather than January, which were the choices available for canary rockfish in the above example.

We certainly agree that there is a need to work towards a more bipartisan bill, but just as Rep. Huffman stated, the one sticking point is “how the bill dealt with annual catch limits and the rebuilding framework under Magnuson.” This is indeed a “big deal,” and it’s exactly why the industry must stand behind the elements of H.R. 200 that provide much-needed flexibility to the Councils to better meet the standards set forth in the Act while also better meeting the socioeconomic needs of regional fisheries and fishing communities.

I hope that seafoodnews.com will support the U.S. fishing industry with this effort. Thank you for your consideration of my perspective.

Sincerely,

Lori Steele

This letter originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.